The Cost of Conflict: White House and Human Rights

Civitas Outlook editor-in-chief Richard M. Reinsch II interviews Prof. Jonathan Adler about his recent Outlook article in which he argues that executive overreach does not justify judicial overreach—and it is hardly appeasement to conclude otherwise.

Jonathan Adler argues that the Supreme Court’s reluctance to confront the Trump Administration is not an act of political appeasement but a reflection of judicial restraint grounded in legal principle. Critics like Steve Vladeck accuse the Court, especially Chief Justice Roberts, of enabling executive overreach by failing to check Trump’s actions. However, Adler contends that the Court is simply adhering to constitutional limits, addressing only the specific legal questions properly before it. Judicial power is not meant to provide sweeping oversight of the executive branch, and intervention in the absence of concrete legal violations would itself be a form of overreach. The Court’s cautious approach reflects a commitment to its role in the constitutional system, not complicity in authoritarianism.

Jonathan H. Adler is the Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law at the William & Mary Law School.